13 May 2022

On 14 April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the provision of an “asylum partnership arrangement”. In short, the agreement allows the UK government to send asylum seekers to Rwanda to have their applications processed. The agreement is part of the government’s New Plan for Immigration and was signed two weeks before the Nationality and Borders Bill was given Royal Assent.

What is the asylum partnership arrangement?
Home Secretary Priti Patel described the agreement as the “biggest overhaul of our immigration system in decades.” Indeed, the policy marks the first arrangement between the UK and another country for the removal of asylum seekers.

The so-called “one way ticket” allows the UK government to offshore asylum applicants to Rwanda, where their applications are processed in line with Rwandan national law and the Refugee Convention. The UK’s legal responsibility for such individuals ends once they are relocated to Rwanda; individuals who are relocated are not allowed to return to the UK.

Is the arrangement legal?
Under paragraph 345C of the Immigration Rules, an applicant whose asylum application is treated as inadmissible may be removed to a “safe third country”. An application may be treated as inadmissible for a number of reasons, including where an applicant passes through a safe third country and fails to make an application there. In theory, this provision would capture individuals crossing the Channel on small boats. However, until now, the UK has not had arrangements in place with other countries to remove such individuals. It could only remove individuals in more limited circumstances, for example, where an individual has refugee status in a safe third country.

This may explain why there is a large discrepancy between the number of asylum applicants who are issued notices of intent to inform them that their cases are being reviewed on inadmissibility grounds (8,593*) and the number of people who are removed to a third country (11*). Jonathan Featonby, Policy and Advocacy Manager at the British Red Cross, expects the number of removals to increase as a result of this policy.

The Nationality and Borders Act (‘the Act’) inserts the inadmissibility provisions (outlined above) into primary legislation. A provision to amend section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to allow the removal of asylum seekers to a “safe third country” whilst their applications were pending was removed from the Bill after suffering a defeat in the House of Lords. The insertion of this clause would have meant that a much wider group of individuals would have fallen within the remit of the removal rules.

Why has the UK implemented the policy?
Speaking about the arrangement, Priti Patel said the agreement would “put an end to [the] deadly trade in people smuggling”. In particular, she highlighted the more than 28,000 migrants who crossed the English Channel last year in small boats. Under the new arrangement, anyone who crosses the Channel by small boat could be relocated to Rwanda. Patel claims the new policy will deter illegal entry and be a “major blow to evil people smugglers”.

However, there has been scepticism over the validity of this point. In a letter to the Home Secretary, Matthew Rycroft CBE, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, said that whilst he was satisfied that is was “regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed”, he did not believe that there was “sufficient evidence” to demonstrate that the policy would have a deterrent effect. If the example of Australia is anything to go by, then there is doubt over whether offshoring processing acts as a deterrent.

In his letter, Matthew Rycroft also highlighted the “value for money” of the proposal, which is largely dependant upon the policy acting as an effective deterrent. The UK government has committed £120 million to the “world first partnership”; however, it is believed that this is only an initial investment as the UK will be paying for operational costs too.

What is next?
Both the Rwanda agreement and Nationality and Borders Act have been the subject of fierce criticism. Labour Leader, Keir Starmer, described the Rwanda agreement as “unworkable” and “extortionate”.

It is expected that the policy will face legal challenges. Indeed, Leigh Day has already submitted a pre-action letter to the Home Office on behalf of the charity Freedom from Torture, citing “serious concerns about the lawfulness of the policy”.

In response, Prime Minister Boris Johnson took aim at “liberal-left lawyers will try to make this [deal] difficult”.

“We always knew this was going to happen,” he added. “I’m not going to pretend to you that is going to be without legal challenges… but we will get it done.”

*Figures are from 2021.

Get in touch
To learn more about forthcoming changes to UK immigration law, see our website, contact your assigned LDI lawyer or email enquiries@lauradevine.com.